Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §21.1.4.pr-21.1.4.6

Criteria for Redhibition and the Action on Purchase for Mental Defects

Passage 3018 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian discusses the application of redhibition and the action on purchase under the Aedilian Edict concerning bodily and mental defects in sold slaves or beasts, organizing the juristic opinions of Pomponius and others on the boundaries of these categories.

[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium. ] §21.1.4.prob quae uitia negat redhibitionem esse, ex empto dat actionem.
[ULPIANUS with the first book on the Edict of the Curule Aediles.] For which defects he denies that there is redhibition, but grants an action on purchase.
§21.1.4.1Sed si uitium corporis usque ad animum penetrat, forte si propter febrem loquantur aliena uel qui per uicos more insanorum deridenda loquantur, in quos id animi uitium ex corporis uitio accidit, redhiberi posse.
But if a defect of the body penetrates as far as the mind, for example, if on account of fever they speak incoherently, or those who speak ridiculous things along the streets in the manner of insane persons, in whom this defect of the mind happens from a defect of the body, they can be redhibited.
§21.1.4.2Item aleatores et uinarios non contineri edicto quosdam respondisse Pomponius ait, quemadmodum nec gulosos nec impostores aut mendaces aut litigiosos.
Likewise, Pomponius says that certain persons answered that gamblers and wine-drinkers are not contained in the edict, just as neither the gluttonous, nor impostors, nor liars, nor the litigious.
§21.1.4.3Idem Pomponius ait, quamuis non ualide sapientem seruum uenditor praestare debeat, tamen, si ita fatuum uel morionem uendiderit, ut in eo usus nullus sit, uideri uitium.
The same Pomponius says that, although a seller is not bound to warrant a slave to be highly wise, yet, if he sells one so foolish or an idiot that there is no use in him, it is seen as a defect.
et uidemus hoc ita, ut si uitii morbique appellatio non uideatur pertinere nisi ad corpora: animi autem uitium ita demum praestabit uenditor, si promisit, si minus, non.
And we see this in such a way, that if the appellation of defect and disease does not seem to pertain except to bodies: yet the seller will warrant a defect of the mind only if he promised it, and if not, he will not.
et ideo nominatim de errone et fugitino excipitur: hoc enim animi uitium est, non corporis.
And therefore an exception is made by name concerning the stroller and the runaway: for this is a defect of the mind, not of the body.
unde quidam iumenta pauida et calcitrosa morbosis non esse adnumeranda dixerunt: animi enim, non corporis hoc uitium esse.
Whence some have said that timid and kicking beasts of burden are not to be numbered among the diseased: for this is a defect of the mind, not of the body.
§21.1.4.4In summa si quidem animi tantum uitium est, redhiberi non potest, nisi si dictum est hoc abesse et non abest: ex empto tamen agi potest, si sciens id uitium animi reticuit: si autem corporis solius uitium est aut et corporis et animi mixtum uitium, redhibitio locum habebit.
In short, if indeed it is a defect of the mind only, it cannot be redhibited, unless it has been declared that this is absent and it is not absent: yet an action on purchase can be brought if he, knowing it, kept silent about that defect of the mind; but if it is a defect of the body alone, or a mixed defect of both body and mind, redhibition will take place.
§21.1.4.5Illud erit adnotandum, quod de morbo generaliter scriptum est, non de sontico morbo, nec mirum hoc uideri Pomponius ait: nihil enim ibi agitur de ea re, cui hic ipse morbus obstet.
It must be noted that it is written generally about disease, not about a serious disease, and Pomponius says that this does not seem strange: for nothing is treated there concerning that matter which this very disease would obstruct.
§21.1.4.6Idem ait non omnem morbum dare locum redhibitioni, ut puta leuis lippitudo aut leuis dentis auriculaeue dolor aut mediocre ulcus: non denique febriculam quantulamlibet ad causam huius edicti pertinere.
The same says that not every disease gives rise to redhibition, as for example a slight ophthalmia, or a slight pain of a tooth or an ear, or a moderate ulcer: in short, that a fever, however small, does not pertain to the cause of this edict.

Notes

  1. §21.1.4.prnegat ... dat — The subject of these verbs is not explicitly expressed, but from the context it refers to the edict (edictum) or the aedile (aedilis) who issued it.
  2. §21.1.4.1redhiberi posse — An accusative with infinitive (A.C.I.) construction with the omission of a verb of saying/thinking (such as Pomponius ait), stating the juristic conclusion that a slave whose mental defect arose from a bodily defect can be redhibited.
  3. §21.1.4.3et uidemus hoc ita, ut si — The phrase `ut si` introduces a hypothetical condition ('as if' or 'if indeed'). It explains how liability for mental defects is handled under the assumption that the definition of defect and disease is strictly limited to the body (ut si... non uideatur pertinere nisi ad corpora).
  4. §21.1.4.5cui hic ipse morbus obstet — The subjunctive `obstet` in the relative clause is a subjunctive of characteristic (or generic subjunctive), describing the kind of matter which this very disease would generally obstruct, rather than a specific fact.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §21.1.4.pr-21.1.4.6. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:21.1.4.pr-21.1.4.6

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.